RH seems, in their wisdom, to have settled on Gnome3 or KDE. As far as I can see, they aren't offering any other desktop environments.
I can't stand Gnome3, and don't care a whole lot for KDE 4.x, though it doesn't irritate me the way Gnome 3 does.
Given the new relationship between RH and Centos, are their any new possibilities of including (or offering as extras) things like Mate or Cinnamon?
Or will I need to roll my own (or bring 'em in from Fedora) ??
Thanks to the whole Centos team for the really good distribution. I hope to be with you for many more years, if I can.
On 03/05/2014 05:52 PM, Fred Smith wrote:
RH seems, in their wisdom, to have settled on Gnome3 or KDE. As far as I can see, they aren't offering any other desktop environments.
I can't stand Gnome3, and don't care a whole lot for KDE 4.x, though it doesn't irritate me the way Gnome 3 does.
Given the new relationship between RH and Centos, are their any new possibilities of including (or offering as extras) things like Mate or Cinnamon?
Possibly. We had done a spin of XFCE in the past, and we may do so again as well. What I'd very much like to see is a "Desktop SIG" around exactly this sort of thing. I'd like to see Mate, or XFCE spun up and included as a T1 repo that folks can add. This may happen within EPEL, but if not, it would be very nice for someone in the community to spin up.
Or will I need to roll my own (or bring 'em in from Fedora) ??
Would you consider contributing to a Desktop SIG?
Thanks to the whole Centos team for the really good distribution. I hope to be with you for many more years, if I can.
We hope so too :-)
It's things like this that are killing gnome:
top - 21:45:20 up 20 days, 10:52, 5 users, load average: 6.30, 4.24, 3.65 Tasks: 274 total, 2 running, 271 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie Cpu(s): 13.5%us, 5.8%sy, 0.0%ni, 80.0%id, 0.3%wa, 0.3%hi, 0.1%si, 0.0%st Mem: 32842188k total, 32237528k used, 604660k free, 115152k buffers Swap: 67076092k total, 1051676k used, 66024416k free, 679320k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 7261 gerryr 20 0 1735m 177m 16m S 475.2 0.6 12617:11 gnome-shell
$ glxinfo | grep renderer OpenGL renderer string: Gallium 0.4 on llvmpipe (LLVM 0x300)
This machine has an Intel HD P4000 GPU so why is it using llvmpipe?
gnome-shell is wrecking this machine.
Sometimes gnome will find and use the GPU just fine and others like this machine, no matter what you do it insists on using llvmpipe which just kills performance.
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 07:38:41PM -0600, Jim Perrin wrote:
On 03/05/2014 05:52 PM, Fred Smith wrote:
RH seems, in their wisdom, to have settled on Gnome3 or KDE. As far as I can see, they aren't offering any other desktop environments.
I can't stand Gnome3, and don't care a whole lot for KDE 4.x, though it doesn't irritate me the way Gnome 3 does.
Given the new relationship between RH and Centos, are their any new possibilities of including (or offering as extras) things like Mate or Cinnamon?
Possibly. We had done a spin of XFCE in the past, and we may do so again as well. What I'd very much like to see is a "Desktop SIG" around exactly this sort of thing. I'd like to see Mate, or XFCE spun up and included as a T1 repo that folks can add. This may happen within EPEL, but if not, it would be very nice for someone in the community to spin up.
Or will I need to roll my own (or bring 'em in from Fedora) ??
Would you consider contributing to a Desktop SIG?
It's possible. But I haven't a clue what's involved,... is it documented somewhere?
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 19:38:41 -0600, Jim Perrin wrote:
Or will I need to roll my own (or bring 'em in from Fedora) ??
Would you consider contributing to a Desktop SIG?
I would *love* to help with a Desktop SIG. Of course I am 100% ignorant on how to do this, I learn fast ;)
On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 03:09:15PM +0000, Alexander Bisogiannis wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 19:38:41 -0600, Jim Perrin wrote:
Or will I need to roll my own (or bring 'em in from Fedora) ??
Would you consider contributing to a Desktop SIG?
I would *love* to help with a Desktop SIG. Of course I am 100% ignorant on how to do this, I learn fast ;)
and as I said when Jim posted this, I think I'd like to do so too. but I was reading stuff on the wiki and seven.centos.org about SIGs and how to get started didn't leap out at me.
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Fred Smith fredex@fcshome.stoneham.ma.us wrote:
RH seems, in their wisdom, to have settled on Gnome3 or KDE. As far as I can see, they aren't offering any other desktop environments.
I can't stand Gnome3, and don't care a whole lot for KDE 4.x, though it doesn't irritate me the way Gnome 3 does.
Another issue is that Gnome3 needs 3D and does not work with x2go (and probably freenx/nx if that is going to be packaged). And I almost never work directly at a console. KDE seems to mostly work, but it is annoying to have to switch after all these years of RedHat pushing GNOME.
On 03/07/2014 04:57 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Fred Smith fredex@fcshome.stoneham.ma.us wrote:
RH seems, in their wisdom, to have settled on Gnome3 or KDE. As far as I can see, they aren't offering any other desktop environments.
I can't stand Gnome3, and don't care a whole lot for KDE 4.x, though it doesn't irritate me the way Gnome 3 does.
Another issue is that Gnome3 needs 3D and does not work with x2go (and probably freenx/nx if that is going to be packaged). And I almost never work directly at a console. KDE seems to mostly work, but it is annoying to have to switch after all these years of RedHat pushing GNOME.
Is GNOME 2 for CentOS 7 totally out of the picture?
On 03/07/2014 10:59 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Is GNOME 2 for CentOS 7 totally out of the picture?
Yes, with a caveat.
I'm currently working on a MATE build for the 7 beta. The other side of this is trying work with the current upstream maintainers to see where it needs to live long-term (Either in epel, or as our own project).
On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 11:18:49 -0600, Jim Perrin wrote:
On 03/07/2014 10:59 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Is GNOME 2 for CentOS 7 totally out of the picture?
Yes, with a caveat.
I'm currently working on a MATE build for the 7 beta. The other side of this is trying work with the current upstream maintainers to see where it needs to live long-term (Either in epel, or as our own project).
OK, so what do need to do to create a Desktop SIG?
On 03/12/2014 07:27 AM, Alexander Bisogiannis wrote:
OK, so what do need to do to create a Desktop SIG?
Get a basic plan together, list what you want to achieve - what the broad goals are going to be, how one might get there, what sort of resources are going to be needed, who is coming along now and who might come along later ( wishlist if you want ) and what the process might be.
Can either do this exercise here on the list, or get wiki.c.o accounts and we can use that as a shared space to thrash the poposal out.
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic centos@plnet.rs wrote:
RH seems, in their wisdom, to have settled on Gnome3 or KDE. As far as I can see, they aren't offering any other desktop environments.
I can't stand Gnome3, and don't care a whole lot for KDE 4.x, though it doesn't irritate me the way Gnome 3 does.
Another issue is that Gnome3 needs 3D and does not work with x2go (and probably freenx/nx if that is going to be packaged). And I almost never work directly at a console. KDE seems to mostly work, but it is annoying to have to switch after all these years of RedHat pushing GNOME.
Is GNOME 2 for CentOS 7 totally out of the picture?
I'd hate to try to package something like that in a way that would satisfy the rpm dependencies without conflicts. There should be some sort of classic mode or flashback that works in 2D but I don't think either is included now.
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic centos@plnet.rs wrote:
RH seems, in their wisdom, to have settled on Gnome3 or KDE. As far as I can see, they aren't offering any other desktop environments.
I can't stand Gnome3, and don't care a whole lot for KDE 4.x, though it doesn't irritate me the way Gnome 3 does.
Another issue is that Gnome3 needs 3D and does not work with x2go (and probably freenx/nx if that is going to be packaged). And I almost never work directly at a console. KDE seems to mostly work, but it is annoying to have to switch after all these years of RedHat pushing GNOME.
Is GNOME 2 for CentOS 7 totally out of the picture?
I'd hate to try to package something like that in a way that would satisfy the rpm dependencies without conflicts. There should be some sort of classic mode or flashback that works in 2D but I don't think either is included now.
Why none is writing about Cinnamon? I say it because annoyed by gnome 3 consumption of cpu and gpu resources (and sometimes needing to "kill -SIGHUP" gnome-shell because freezed, especially when using rdp sessions..) I'm happily using Cinnamon in both Fedora 19 and Fedora 20 since one month.
It is in my opinion a perfect compromise: completely integrated with dbus and notifications, networkmanager and many other things. I tried in the recent past both xfce and mate and also if they are both very good, my fully personal vote at this moment goes to Cinnamon. I think that it should not be too complicated to package it for RHEL 7 and/or CentOS 7. Not yet tested RH EL 7 beta at all, but I'm going to try and to see how difficult could be to build Cinnamon source rpm coming from fedora
Cheers, Gianluca
On 03/07/2014 05:27 PM, Gianluca Cecchi wrote:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic centos@plnet.rs wrote:
RH seems, in their wisdom, to have settled on Gnome3 or KDE. As far as I can see, they aren't offering any other desktop environments.
I can't stand Gnome3, and don't care a whole lot for KDE 4.x, though it doesn't irritate me the way Gnome 3 does.
Another issue is that Gnome3 needs 3D and does not work with x2go (and probably freenx/nx if that is going to be packaged). And I almost never work directly at a console. KDE seems to mostly work, but it is annoying to have to switch after all these years of RedHat pushing GNOME.
Is GNOME 2 for CentOS 7 totally out of the picture?
I'd hate to try to package something like that in a way that would satisfy the rpm dependencies without conflicts. There should be some sort of classic mode or flashback that works in 2D but I don't think either is included now.
Why none is writing about Cinnamon? I say it because annoyed by gnome 3 consumption of cpu and gpu resources (and sometimes needing to "kill -SIGHUP" gnome-shell because freezed, especially when using rdp sessions..) I'm happily using Cinnamon in both Fedora 19 and Fedora 20 since one month.
It is in my opinion a perfect compromise: completely integrated with dbus and notifications, networkmanager and many other things. I tried in the recent past both xfce and mate and also if they are both very good, my fully personal vote at this moment goes to Cinnamon. I think that it should not be too complicated to package it for RHEL 7 and/or CentOS 7. Not yet tested RH EL 7 beta at all, but I'm going to try and to see how difficult could be to build Cinnamon source rpm coming from fedora
The issue with this (or any other RPM set from Fedora or elsewhere) is not getting it initially working with EL7 ... it is making it continue to work with EL7 over the lifetime of the distro.
Security issues are a very big potential problem and if we can not get someone from the upstream projects (Fedora, EPEL, Mate-Desktop, Cinnamon) to commit to maintaining security then we have to commit the resources to make that happen inside the SIG.
I have no issues with either one (Mate or Cinnamon) or even both .. but as CentOS-7 becomes older, those projects (at the upstream level) are going to move on to the latest xorg versions, and this is going to become harder to maintain. I think that it is therefore in the best interest of the project to pick one or the other initially to maintain. If we have enough interest in both, with enough people (with the skills required) to maintain both, that is great as well.
On 03/07/2014 09:57 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Another issue is that Gnome3 needs 3D and does not work with x2go (and probably freenx/nx if that is going to be packaged). And I almost never work directly at a console. KDE seems to mostly work, but it is annoying to have to switch after all these years of RedHat pushing GNOME.
To clear something up, IIRC 7 uses GNOME Classic - not stock GNOME 3 - as its default, which does *not* require 3D.
In the default desktop, GNOME looks a lot like GNOME 2x.
This isn't to say we shouldn't package Mate or Xfce or any additional desktops for CentOS - but it'd be good to make sure people are moving away from the defaults as an informed choice.
Best,
jzb
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Joe Brockmeier jzb@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/07/2014 09:57 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Another issue is that Gnome3 needs 3D and does not work with x2go (and probably freenx/nx if that is going to be packaged). And I almost never work directly at a console. KDE seems to mostly work, but it is annoying to have to switch after all these years of RedHat pushing GNOME.
To clear something up, IIRC 7 uses GNOME Classic - not stock GNOME 3 - as its default, which does *not* require 3D.
So... If that's the case, why can't you run it with x2go?
On Mar 12, 2014 10:45 PM, "Joe Brockmeier" jzb@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/07/2014 09:57 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Another issue is that Gnome3 needs 3D and does not work with x2go (and probably freenx/nx if that is going to be packaged). And I almost never work directly at a console. KDE seems to mostly work, but it is annoying to have to switch after all these years of RedHat pushing GNOME.
To clear something up, IIRC 7 uses GNOME Classic - not stock GNOME 3 - as its default, which does *not* require 3D.
I was under the impression that Gnome3 classic is just a set a of gnome-shell extensions and a different CSS theme. Does it do something more that makes Gnome3 not require 3D?
I thought Fallback mode (non-3d) was dropped when llvmpipe came onto the scene.
-AdamM
In the default desktop, GNOME looks a lot like GNOME 2x.
This isn't to say we shouldn't package Mate or Xfce or any additional desktops for CentOS - but it'd be good to make sure people are moving away from the defaults as an informed choice.
Best,
jzb
Joe Brockmeier | Principal Cloud & Storage Analyst jzb@redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/ Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/ _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
RHEL7 uses Gnome3, period.
There is a "session" called Gnome3 classic, which is Gnome3 + extensions, all of which can be downloaded and installed from extensions.gnome.org.
If someone wants to have a desktop that it a continuation of the RHEL6 desktop, i.e. Gnome2, the only true option is MATE.
The thing is that ATM MATE is using Gtk2, which is obsolete at this point and will only receive minor updates for the lifetime of RHEL6.
MATE is looking to rebase to Gtk3, but they have postponed it to MATE 1.10 [1]
So IMO, the only way forward is MATE with Gtk3.
[1] http://mate-desktop.org/blog/2014-02-13-mate-desktop-roadmap- reshuffle/
On 03/13/2014 08:22 AM, Alexander Bisogiannis wrote:
So IMO, the only way forward is MATE with Gtk3.
[1] http://mate-desktop.org/blog/2014-02-13-mate-desktop-roadmap- reshuffle/
Link broke i two: http://mate-desktop.org/blog/2014-02-13-mate-desktop-roadmap-reshuffle/
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:45:33PM -0500, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
On 03/07/2014 09:57 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Another issue is that Gnome3 needs 3D and does not work with x2go (and probably freenx/nx if that is going to be packaged). And I almost never work directly at a console. KDE seems to mostly work, but it is annoying to have to switch after all these years of RedHat pushing GNOME.
To clear something up, IIRC 7 uses GNOME Classic - not stock GNOME 3 - as its default, which does *not* require 3D.
In the default desktop, GNOME looks a lot like GNOME 2x.
This isn't to say we shouldn't package Mate or Xfce or any additional desktops for CentOS - but it'd be good to make sure people are moving away from the defaults as an informed choice.
GNOME Classic is a set of extensions on top of GNOME 3. However, AIUI GNOME 3 doesn't require 3D hardware because there is an llvmpipe backend that will do software rendering on machines without capable hardware. Performance may be encumbered in that case with a slower CPU, but should still work.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Paul W. Frields pfrields@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:45:33PM -0500, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
On 03/07/2014 09:57 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Another issue is that Gnome3 needs 3D and does not work with x2go (and probably freenx/nx if that is going to be packaged). And I almost never work directly at a console. KDE seems to mostly work, but it is annoying to have to switch after all these years of RedHat pushing GNOME.
To clear something up, IIRC 7 uses GNOME Classic - not stock GNOME 3 - as its default, which does *not* require 3D.
In the default desktop, GNOME looks a lot like GNOME 2x.
This isn't to say we shouldn't package Mate or Xfce or any additional desktops for CentOS - but it'd be good to make sure people are moving away from the defaults as an informed choice.
GNOME Classic is a set of extensions on top of GNOME 3. However, AIUI GNOME 3 doesn't require 3D hardware because there is an llvmpipe backend that will do software rendering on machines without capable hardware. Performance may be encumbered in that case with a slower CPU, but should still work.
A session won't even start up under x2go. Maybe it has to check real hardware before deciding how to handle 3d. Does anyone know if it works with vnc/Xnest or other virtual-buffer scenarios? Anyone working on freenx?
On 03/13/2014 09:50 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
A session won't even start up under x2go. Maybe it has to check real hardware before deciding how to handle 3d. Does anyone know if it works with vnc/Xnest or other virtual-buffer scenarios? Anyone working on freenx?
Well, it works just fine using the VNC server display option under Virtual Machine Manager on F20. That's why I responded earlier that I don't think it strictly requires 3D.
Given this thread, clearly there's some confusion about just what GNOME 3 on RHEL 7 beta requires / what the RHEL 7 GA will require, so I'm going to try to follow up and put up a post (probably next week) about this soon.
Best,
jzb
On 03/13/2014 10:44 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:45:33PM -0500, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
On 03/07/2014 09:57 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Another issue is that Gnome3 needs 3D and does not work with x2go (and probably freenx/nx if that is going to be packaged). And I almost never work directly at a console. KDE seems to mostly work, but it is annoying to have to switch after all these years of RedHat pushing GNOME.
To clear something up, IIRC 7 uses GNOME Classic - not stock GNOME 3 - as its default, which does *not* require 3D.
In the default desktop, GNOME looks a lot like GNOME 2x.
This isn't to say we shouldn't package Mate or Xfce or any additional desktops for CentOS - but it'd be good to make sure people are moving away from the defaults as an informed choice.
GNOME Classic is a set of extensions on top of GNOME 3. However, AIUI GNOME 3 doesn't require 3D hardware because there is an llvmpipe backend that will do software rendering on machines without capable hardware. Performance may be encumbered in that case with a slower CPU, but should still work.
And this llvmpipe implementation does not work properly.
Even on machines with good GPU's Gnome 3 refuses to use them and defaults many times to using llvmpipe which just totally kills performance.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Gerry Reno greno@verizon.net wrote:
This isn't to say we shouldn't package Mate or Xfce or any additional desktops for CentOS - but it'd be good to make sure people are moving away from the defaults as an informed choice.
GNOME Classic is a set of extensions on top of GNOME 3. However, AIUI GNOME 3 doesn't require 3D hardware because there is an llvmpipe backend that will do software rendering on machines without capable hardware. Performance may be encumbered in that case with a slower CPU, but should still work.
And this llvmpipe implementation does not work properly.
Even on machines with good GPU's Gnome 3 refuses to use them and defaults many times to using llvmpipe which just totally kills performance.
Can someone report the issues that can be documented to Red Hat?
-
Adam Miller -
Alexander Bisogiannis -
Fred Smith -
Gerry Reno -
Gianluca Cecchi -
Jim Perrin -
Joe Brockmeier -
Johnny Hughes -
Karanbir Singh -
Les Mikesell -
Ljubomir Ljubojevic -
Paul W. Frields